Damn Defeatism and Doomsaying!

Harry Reid could not muster 51 votes for a major change in the filibuster rules. So, now, we have folks in many venues claiming that the next four years will accomplish nothing. Some are even expatriates.

That is unmitigated bullshit!

Much was accomplished in the previous four years, and much will be accomplished in the next four years, despite some people's wishes that it were not so. Watch. Help.

2014 is coming. Begin today to elect a Democratic majority in the house. Find the candidates who can win in every state where a Democrat can beat a Republican, and get those people nominated and elected. We can do this, if we have the will to do it.

Do not listen to defeatists and doomsayers. Some of them are not even on your side, despite their use of the word lefty or left in their screen names. Some do not wish for Obama to succeed. Let them blather on. Get out and help make things happen. Much is up to us. Let's help President Obama make the things happen he spoke of in his second inauguration speech. It can be done if we have the will to do it.

1. More: Not everyone who claims to be progressive or liberal is.

There are deceivers out there. They claim one thing, but act in ways that belie their claims. Reject their message. Take the challenge President Obama has given us for his second term and provide the support that will make those changes happen.

95. No, you're just another Obama-hater. Good luck while you're here. nt.

103. Disagreeing with disagreeable policy

Does not a hater make. The Obama I liked was the Obama who was against warrantless wiretapping before he was for it. The Obama I liked was the Obama who wanted to meet with Iranian leaders before he wanted to "regime change" them. The Obama I liked was the Obama who wanted to renegotiate NAFTA before he signed three more SHAFTAs. In other words, the Obama I liked was Candidate Obama. But then, I believe actions speak louder than words. You, apparently not so much.

18. For a little over 4 months, there were 60 Senators...

Al Franken wasn't seated until July 7, 2009, and Kennedy was already absent at that point. Paul Kirk was seated Sept 24 as a temporary replacement for Ted Kennedy, giving the Dems 60 Senate seats, but Kirk was replaced by Scott Brown on Feb 4, 2010.

4. I don't like it, but I have to support Harry on this.

This issue is far more complex than those who seem to be setting their hair on fire over it realize.

Here are some hypotheticals:

What if the nuclear option results in giving the GOP an automatic campaign slogan to win back the Senate?

What if the GOP continues their obstruction in spite of Dems playing fair and gives Dems a built-in campaign slogan to retain, or build on, their Senate majority.

What if Harry Reid is right and this has the best chance for the Democratic Party going forward? And if the GOP manages to take the Senate majority in 2015, the last thing we want is for the minority to be toothless.

If I could think of a nightmare scenerio it would be on the order of the second hypothetical -- the GOP continues to obstruct everything. I don't see that as being good for them after November's election.

So let's all please keep the lit matches away from our scalps. Since we now have to live with this, let us see how this works out before we condemn an outcome which has not yet occurred.

6. Thank you n/t

7. Yes. I was surprised to see Barbara Boxer and Diane

Feinstein not in support of the filibuster change. There are reasons to argue that it should not be changed back to the old talking filibuster. I disagree with those reasons, but I'm not in the Senate.

27. Should the Republicans ever get control of the Senate, dont count on them remembering

Sen Reid's actions today. When they last had the majority they never invoked the nuclear option but they used it as a threat to get their way.

The Senate is busted without filibuster reform. We had an opportunity to fix it but choose not to. Now we have no excuse to blame the Republicans because we choose the status quo. Those that are disappointed that 9 Democrats (possibly one independent) decided to support the Republicans on this issue should not be characterized as crazy.

It's not worth the trade off to settle for two more years of obstruction just to blame Republicans. Besides the public will most likely blame Democrats because we appear to have control of the Senate. I dont know how many times I have heard, "But the Democrats control the Senate."

I realize we must go forward, but I cant help feel betrayed by a handful (9) of Democratic Senators.

64. Or Democratic Senators that realize that majorities come and go.

That explains things quite nicely with few other assumptions.

We all discussed these aspects of this issue for the past four years here. A possible future GOP majority was always an undeniable cloud on the horizon. We've all seen it happen more than once, even the youngest DUers must acknowledge that fact.

So why now do some DUers seem so surprised and hurt when the filibuster still essentially stands with only minor changes?

It is not because the Democrats caved; it is because they may be in the minority again.

69. With respect I think you are wrong. Even if we get in the minority, there is absolutely

no guarantee that the REpublicans then wont change the rule to make it hard for the minority Democrats to filibuster. In fact, when the Republicans last had majority they used the threat of the nuclear option to force Democrats to get in line. The rule needs to be fixed.

80. But doing it unilaterally would have been very bad for Dems.

1. The GOP has been abusing the filibuster in an unprecedented amount.

2. Either work with Democrats on fixing it, or Democrats will act without you.

It wasn't Harry who caved; it was the GOP.

Did we get what we wanted? Nope!

Did the GOP get what they wanted? Nope!

Plus, we do not know what else went on. President Obama and Democratic wins in November have got to have the GOP worried. The Senate is generally a collegial chamber. I am sure there was a handshake behind the scenes in addition to the new rules.

14. Optimism ...

60. If history plays out like it has in the past we'll not always have a majority

We'd be really fucked when the pukies get in control. Dems are level headed and for the most part will always do what is right for the country where as the pukies are ready to nuke the country and take us all down if given the chance. big diff

66. If you are suggesting we shouldnt "fix" this rule that has been abused

only because we might want to abuse it in the future, I say no. No one, Dem or repub should be able to abuse this rule. And if we dont fix this, the Republicans can "fix" it when they get in power. They wont care that we were the good guys in 2012. The rule doesnt work as is. It needs to be fixed.

71. For the most part we play by the rules where as the pukes don't or won't

If the votes were there I'm sure Reid would have fixed it but I don't think they were so this is as good as it gets for now. We just have to make sure we get enough real dems in the Senate that can be counted on then maybe something will get done

13. Reid said that he had the 51 votes.

15. If he actually had them, the change would have been put to a vote.

It was not, so I'm guessing he didn't have them. If he had only 50, the VP could have voted, but that would be a very unpopular thing among Senate members, and might have resulted in a defection or two.

20. so you don't take his word for it, and YOU know better

got it.

Senate Democrats have the 51 votes necessary to weaken the filibuster, the top two Democrats declared unequivocally on Wednesday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he’s continuing discussions with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) over a bipartisan resolution. But when asked if he has the 51 votes for filibuster reform via the constitutional option if that fails, he didn’t mince words.

62. I think I agree with you. First, it isnt a valid argument to say "but he said" when refering to a

politician.

Now is it possible that he had the votes (therefore didnt lie) and choose not to call the vote? If so, what would be the ramifications? Would those that favored reform come out and expose his inaction?

If he didnt have the votes, why didnt he? It would mean that nine Democrats (or 8 D and 1 I) would vote with Republicans on stifling reform. Is that possible? Wouldnt that be embarrassing and harm their reelection possibilities?

Some have suggested, foolishly IMO, that the Democrats are afraid if they reform the filibuster rule it might come back to bite them in the future if the REpublicans get control. Have to add that this argument is absurd to the max. First of all the Republicans would sure as hell change the rules in the future if they thought for a second it would help them. In fact they used the threat of the nuclear option to get their way in the past. The only reason they didnt use is was because the Democrats caved when threatened. Besides, the rule can be abused and needs to be changed.

84. But he sure made Turtle happy.

17. Hear, hear!

MinMan, I am as sick as you are of the people who are allegedly on our side pulling us all down like crabs in a bucket at every single opportunity. And if there isn't an opportunity, they'll just make shit up.

GOTV for 2014 -- give the President a House he can work with -- send Blue Dogs from bright red districts and call it a victory -- send left- Dems wherever you can -- just git 'er done!

22. Thank you! When some declare utter failure

at the least setback, It pisses me off. That is not how we will win. It is a prescription for losing, or perhaps a hope on the part of some who cry doom and gloom every time something doesn't go a certain way. Setbacks should only be encouragement to try harder, not to give up.

26. I think you are right about it being...

... a hope on the part of those who write that way that Obama and the Dems will in fact lose. Anyone can have a bad day or night posting anonymous rants on the internet -- but time after time after time, and it makes you wonder about their real motives, y'know?

36. Yep.

And, TBH, as much as I had noticed this during the election season, I've also noticed a very similar problem with a small, but rather vocal, faction of our resident environmentalists.....better known as the "climate doomers". And believe me, sometimes, they're about as annoying as those hand-wringers who were screaming about a supposed inevitable Romney win.....

55. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "... what calls itself 'the Left'" appears to have

base-building at ***ALL*** costs with no regard as to what would actually be possibly successful with that base once they get it built, much higher in its priorities than anything that might actually work.

Maybe it's from being around an Occupy and seeing something like this, maybe it's just wider experience, when someones won't specify for you/us exactly what/where/when/why/whom/how their agenda is, when they won't commit like that, it's because they are afraid of being taken apart by whomever they are recruiting. In the case of what calls itself "the Left" that makes them EXACTLY the same as President Obama whom they have tried to harm in any and every way possible for something that they themselves have never concretely specified, that what/where/when/etc. stuff.

This means that PO and what calls itself "the Left" are competing for some of the same base and, when it comes to trusting people, I prefer those who know the most about whatever they're claiming, and don't just pick and choose things like drones (which IS an authentic and significant justice issue, btw) to take pot-shots in the name of something that is hiding behind a mask and CAN'T know everything that it is pretending to know AND refuses to specify its vision in concrete terms for fear of losing base. To me, all of that adds up to "Meet the "new" boss, SAME as the old boss."

I know exactly what Howard Zinn has to say about how all of these trade-offs worked themselves out prior to the Civil War and why all of that failed, but I don't think that means that you take up with just any old "revolution" that makes some fucking noise, especially since their charade could hurt some very very vulnerable people.

61. P.S. I'd LOVE to see a real Left!!! but I have to be honest that about all I've seen so far is

102. Fascist? Who is reaping the proceeds of production, Patrice?

I see little call for marriage between business and government save from the freedom loving "centrist" promising plenty of public/private partnerships, all the "stakeholders" at the table, flag pin wearing, too big to fail empowering, God Bless the Troops saying, and all the "free trade" one can shake a stick at that are the non-fascist.

Where is the militancy and hyper nationalism?

What is it that you are trying to express when you make a statement like this? When you say fascist it makes no connection to reality, according to my perception. What does the word mean to you and why are you specifically electing to use it in this context? I guess I mean for what effect?

Is it blanket for authoritarian to you? Why do you not perceive that those on the flip aren't at least equally put out? In what situations?

I feel you are throwing the word around and I don't think that is your honest intent.

74. It just occurred to me: we have to consider the possibility that what calls itself "the Left" didn't

step up for this filibuster reform vote, so, instead of Reid killing a vote because it was going to succeed (which is what I was thinking), maybe he killed it because it wasn't going to succeed.

Why wouldn't what calls itself "the Left" step up and phone-lobby for a talking filibuster? Hypothesis: what calls itself "the Left" REALLY does contain more Right Wingers than I previously thought and all of the research publishing about their tendencies toward terrorism lately has them in a vengeance frame of mind - AND - MoveOn + Tea Party marriage is bearing fruit. Labor organizers I have known do not like MoveOn and, now, we might note the migration OUT of unions we're hearing about. I also used to do peace stuff with MoveOn, until righties/Paulites started getting on that band-wagon and I have felt for a while that MoveOn will break hard right against anyone but the old AFLCIO guard, inheritors of Nixon's benediction, and especially hard right against anything coming from the SEIU and IWW.

19. Thanks for posting this.

There are people online whose objective appears to be to persuade us not even to get out of bed in the morning. Next time one of them predicts the future, I'm going to cut to the chase and ask for lottery numbers.

23. My pleasure, and I agree with you.

21. Focus: 2014

While I am disappointed there weren't the votes to knock back more of the filibuster rules I also know that change inside the beltway goes at glacial speed and any changes here are better than none. Harry couldn't "be LBJ"...give an evil glance and votes would appear. Seems in times like this a bit of a history and civics lesson around here is in order (not that those with a beef and agenda will ever pay any heed).

Many Democrats are justifiably worried about 2014...there are more Democrats up for re-election than rushpublicans and many fail to realize that without the stupidity of several "strong" rushpublican candidates we could be dealing with Turtleman setting the agenda. Fortunately that's not the case, but that's not the case in two years and I think that has a lot to do with what happened today. Eliminate the filibuster and if and/or when the Democrats become the minority our lives will be truly hell.

Want to make bigger changes? Then work to help get more liberal and progressive Democrats elected in 2014...our numbers are growing but more are needed to bring the changes so many hear are demanding...

52. You seem pretty good at writing posts people want to rec

I know the formula but I'm not interested in guano agitation, I prefer to write OPs that promote pulling together rather than splitting apart, for some reason most of those OPs don't do as well as divisive ones.

56. Not really. My posts get a few recs, but far fewer than many other posters.

I don't write posts to get DU Recs, though. I write posts to express my opinion or ideas. What happens after that depends on many factors. Bottom line is that the subject of this thread is not me. It never was. The subject of this thread is defeatism. I haven't seen you mention anything about that or really anything having to do with the thread. You've mentioned some unnamed DUer, and have commented on me, though. That's not the topic.

78. I comment on named DUers also

And don't be hiding your light under a bushel, you're quite popular here on DU. Just because I tend to speak up more often when I disagree than when I agree doesn't mean I always disagree with you, I think you often make good points but your commentary seems to often carry what I hear as divisive dog whistles.

You admitted some time ago that you have been known to troll for effect.

Allow people to express disappointment, while it's totally unsurprising not getting the filibuster significantly changed is still a major setback.

34. And I think Harkin's wrong, too.

33. Excellent post, MineralMan!

Indeed, we've worked hard to get where we are, and we didn't do it because we threw in the towel; we did it because we dedicated whatever resources we could to make our hopes come true. And it's worked.

(Now, if somebody could just modify this a little and try to talk some sense into our resident climate doomers..... )

53. "doomsayer" is just a synonym for "realist". nt

58. No, you know, it's not.

They are very different words. I am a realist, which means that sometimes I have to deal with accepting less than I hoped for. I am not a doomsayer, though. I believe that hard work and perseverance can make things happen. Hence my call for working to regain a majority in the House. I believe that can happen, but it will require the work of all of us. If some just give up, it will be much harder to make it happen.

88. GREAT JOB!!!!........You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!

....let them giggle and laugh that they "got us", but they are digging a mass grave for themselves. Of a matter of fact the more they're exposed and called out, these rebukes will regurgitate On themselves as time goes by.

If they want to play their little games, they'll be ousted!! No doubt about it! Honestly though, I don't think they are that bright. After all they really thought the election was in the bag; didn't they?